Re: force vs power


blair.houghton@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Matifx wrote:
To me, just the shift from
force (dp/dt) to Power (dp/dt dot v) as the cause of motion must and
will produce new possibilities in the experimental physics domain.

No, I can pretty much guarantee it won't.

But you must learn physics first. You demonstrate below that your
physics knowledge is at the elementary school level.



If there is a real cause of motion then we know
it is not force (dp/dt).

Force is known to be a result of mathematical operations on
a potential field.

Not all forces can be derived from a potential function.


And your paradigm shift is about quarter of a millennium old.

It is not MY paradigm shift. I think it is the first time power is
treated as the cause of motion as far as I can tell after doing some
research.

Look up Lagrangian Mechanics for an exhaustive study of potential
fields as they relate to motion.

My point about statics and dynamics was that all you need to do to
get from Force to Power is to allow the Force to act over a distance.
Applying a force over no distance will mean F*delta_x = 0 and no motion
will occur. Applying a force over any distance means F*delta_x != 0
and
motion will be affected, i.e., caused, by that force. Or, as you note,
velocity is allowed into the equations. The difference is that the
first
situation is statics (a ladder leaning against a wall for a few
decades)
and the second is dynamics (you falling off the ladder). The dichotomy
between statics and dynamics is so well studied that it takes up two
separate semesters of most engineering curricula.

No, your physics is at the elementary school level as I said before.
Power is a scalar product. In circular motion, although distance
covered by a force F constantly changes, power is zero since the force
is orthogonal to the infinitesimal displacement ds.

It seems you studied engineering and you obviously had very little or
no exposure to foundational problems of mechanics. You shouldn't get
into discussions you understand nothing about.




Your amazement is personal. You're amazed simply because you're
naive.

I'm amazed that someone with an engineering background and demonstrated
lack of understanding of even the simplest concepts in physics will go
as far as to call a physicist with a Ph.D and 30 years of teaching
background naive. I can think of several reasons to explain this
behavior but that's not an appropriate subject for this threads but
only for psychiatric therapy sessions.

Mati







--Blair

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Torah Bells
    ... Carrying is, according to physics, work. ... and when you carry you're applying a force for a certain distance. ... weight, whether standing or walking. ... direction of the motion and cos is the cosine. ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: What Is _MOTION_?
    ... gave it a priority in science equivalent to that of mass and distance and gravity and the ... Physics is basically defined as the study of matter and energy and the relationship ... Same answer for motion. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • blowjob
    ... physics gone CHANG-JIANG ... 1)In physics perpetual motion ... OPTIMUM USAGE OF POWER ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Scientifically valid definitions.
    ... > I'm simply asserting that to regard distance and time as fundamental ... > properties of motion is incorrect. ... >> a physics course learned about are consequences of symmetries in nature. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What Is _MOTION_?
    ... >> Please tell us how you would use this equation in physics. ... themselves are based on operational definitions. ... Same answer for motion. ... > coordinate system, use distance as one axis and motion, not time, as the other. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)